On 4/23/13 1:49 AM, "Øyvind Stenhaug" <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:05:38 +0200, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
>
>wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/13 9:22 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:32 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In Gecko we call this :-moz-only-whitespace. So I'd offer
>>>> :only-whitespace as another suggestion.
>>>
>>> Clear, but a bit long. That doesn't kill it, but makes it less
>>> attractive.
>>
>> The much higher clarity of the name offsets the length cost, imo. Short
>>
>> and
>> obscure/ambiguous is no win.
>
>I don't think the name is that clear - it doesn't really sound like it
>includes :empty elements.
>
>(The MDN description illustrates the mismatch, I think: "The
>:-moz-only-whitespace pseudo-class matches an element that has no child
>nodes at all or empty text nodes or text nodes that have only white-space
>
>in them")
I find it much *clearer* than blank. The latter conveys nothing and its
only benefit is that it uses fewer characters, really. Doesn't mean it's
perfect or unambiguous though.